Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Conacher's assessment of Alberta's electoral finance legislation as "lax" does not capture the urgency of the political situation in Alberta, in which minority and special interests have a strangle hold on the province. (See some evidence below based on financial figures and the linkage between government policy and special interests.) Another important consideration is that the Alberta electoral finance caps on contributions and third party spending such as $30,000 for third party spending are not reflective of Alberta's mean total income of $35,250 (Statistics Canada, 2011). Around 75 percent of Albertans cannot afford the $30,000 caps on contributions to political parties and third party expenditure. And there is no financial regulation of party leadership contests. These discrepancies are compounded by no campaign expenditure limit, whereby candidates and parties have no ceiling on the amount of the money they can raise. Further, minority and special interests through contributions to candidates and parties likely have influence on the Alberta government's policies and laws.

Conacher also raises the issue of banning corporations and trade unions from making electoral contributions. The FDA supports banning corporations and trade unions because democracy fundamentally is about the people; corporations and trade unions are about profit and shareholders and/or membership; they are not allowed to vote. The interests of legal entities are narrow and likely inconsistent with the overall public good. The Alberta NDP is the only party of the nine Alberta registered parties to support a ban on electoral contributions from Alberta corporations and trade unions. In its Province Report, the FDA found evidence that provinces which include corporations and trade unions had caps less reflective of mean total income and/or lower penalties on corporations and trade unions for electoral wrongdoing.

"Alberta has lots of problems," he said. "They allow corporations and unions and other organizations that don't vote to be able to use money as a means of influence and have limits that are way too high and allow money to be used as an unethical and undemocratic means of influence over parties and candidates. One can only hope they will move in a democratic direction."

Alberta allows individuals, corporations and unions to donate $15,000 in non-election years and $30,000 in election years while the limit federally is $1,200 per person. Conacher said even that level is too high and should be halved.

Alberta's limits are similar to Ontario while British Columbia has no spending limits, although the NDP has pledged to introduce them if they the next provincial election, Conacher said.

Nova Scotia and Manitoba limit donations to $5,000 and $2000 respectively, he said. Quebec was the first to ban corporations and unions from donating to political parties under Premier Rene Levesque in the 1970s, Conacher said.

The federal government followed suit in 2007, he added.

"But a perusal of donor lists released Tuesday shows corporations provided the lion's share of funding to the governing Progressive Conservatives, totaling $1.9 million of the $3.4 million raised.

AltaLink and ATCO, two companies appointed to construct two controversial electrical transmission lines donated $14,999.50 and $12,950 respectively while SNC Lavalin, which owns, donated another $2,500.

Many other giant corporations with extensive dealings with government were also some of the largest donors; BFI Canada ($15,000), Bruce Power ($8,500), Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. ($15,000), Capital Power ($11,450), CCS Corporation ($15,000), Cenovus Energy (($14,500), Encana ($14,750), First Energy ($15,000), Ledcor Construction ($15,000), Nexen ($10,800), North West Upgrading ($9,000), PCL Construction ($14,850), TransAlta ($9,000), Syncrude ($8,100) and Suncor ($11,125).

The Building Trades Council of Alberta donated $7,000.
Unions provided about 25 per cent of the New Democratic Party revenue in 2011. Thirteen unions donated a total of $210,562.20, led by UFCW ($15,000), CUPE ($13,550), USWE District 3 ($12,500), and Insulators Local 110 ($12,000).

The Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta was the king of fundraising, bringing in more than $3.4 million in 2011 against expenses of $3.4 million, leaving a surplus of just $1,021. But the party has more than $2 million in bonds, stocks and securities and $1,3 million in cash.

Membership fees jumped from $17,886 in 2010 to $787,627 in 2011. They also raised $168,500 in leadership candidate registration fees. But they spent $713,558 on holding the leadership race so rather than posting a $409,668 surplus like they did in 2010, they posted only a $1,021 surplus.

The New Democrats also had a great year fundraising, according to Party secretary Brian Stokes. The NDP raised total revenues of $877,488 - compared to $728,460 in 2010 - against expenses of $679,384 to post a $32,677 surplus.

The party still has liabilities of $378,993, but Stokes said he is confident the party will that off in the next few years.

"We had an extremely strong year, one of our strongest in years actually" said Stokes. "We've been expanding the membership and expanding the base and making a concerted effort and we've been building for the campaign."

FDA Grade Scale

A+ Exceptional candidate and/or party (overall flawless and original policies and vision, impeccable incumbency record if applicable, exceptional competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 84.99% and less than 100.1%)

A Outstanding candidate and/or party (overall very high standard for policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 79.99% and less than 85%)

B+ Very good candidate and/or party (overall high standard for policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 74.99% and less than 80%)

C+ Unacceptable candidate and/or party (few deficiencies and/or major deficiencies in some of the following: policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 64.99% and less than 70%)

C Unacceptable candidate and/or party (several deficiencies and/or major deficiencies in some of the following: policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 59.99% and less than 65%)

D+ Unacceptable candidate and/or party (a lot of deficiencies and/or major deficiencies in some of the following: policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 54.99% and less than 60%)

D Unacceptable candidate and/or party (many deficiencies and/or major deficiencies in some of the following: policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 49.99% and less than 55%)

F Unacceptable candidate and/or party (numerous major deficiencies in most if not all of the following: policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade less than 50%)

FDA Links

Facebook Like Button

Foundation for Democratic Advancement

The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) is an international independent, non-partisan democracy organization. The FDA’s mission is
to measure, study, and communicate the impact of government processes on a free and democratic society.
Overall, the FDA works
1. to ensure that people become more knowledgeable about the outcomes of government processes and can then make decisions that are more informed;
2. to get people involved in monitoring government processes at all levels of government and in providing sound, practical, and effective suggestions. (For more information on the FDA visit: www.democracychange.org)